Twitter/Facebook-Status Political Thought Of The Day
Apr 27th, 2009 by RSmitty
Is it time to junk the Democratic and Republican labels and go with Progressive and Conservative labels, instead?
After having some time for deep thought about politics this weekend (and wishing I could get through Nemski’s desire to bulk-label people, with prejudice, pun intended), I’ve come to the conclusion that progressives from each party have far more in common with one-another, as do conservatives from each party have with one-another, than do Democrats have with one-another and Republicans have with one-another.
I am dead-serious about this, too. Suspend the thoughts of going beyond only a two-major-party system for a moment and consider, would we be better off with a Progressive Party v a Conservative Party, rather than what we have now?
Democrats are just fine with calling themselves Democrats. It’s Republicans who think a name change will help. How about “Altria?”
It’s not what people want to call themselves, noman, but rather what people want to call others within their party. For instance…John Atkins: staunch conservative, but “Democrat” (quotes intended). NCCo Republicans, as described by many (not all) Sussex Republicans (it ain’t pretty).
Point is, Progressive and Conservative seem to me to be almost universal (almost), but much more so than Republican and Democratic. The view of the latter pair really changes, depending on your geography. Heck, look at the mission of DL, first they want all Democrats (or as close to that as you can get), then get what they call “good” Democrats, which is their term of “Progressive” Democrats. It’s not a Republican phenomena of beating our own. We’re just more “cavemanly” about it. Ungh!
Oddly, many progressive issues enjoy polling majorities, but progressives are a minority in the Democratic party.
However, today’s Republicans almost universally describe themselves as conservative. They have moved en masse to the right and they vote together. I think the rightward drift and the solidarity of the Republicans is what has caused the normally fractious progressives to stay within the Democratic party.
how about mine v. yours…or star bellied sneeches v. non-star bellied sneeches
yes
Hi, I’m a progressive and I’m afraid of nuclear energy, hybrid corn, microwave ovens and Bisquick.
Hey RSmitty,
Just because moderates such as yourself are ashamed of what your party has become doesn’t mean that progressive Democrats are ashamed of their party. We’re just working to elect more and better Democrats, and doing that successfully, I might add.
George W. Bush left office with the support of ~75% of the repub party. The vast majority are proud of his terms in office and want more of the same.
If you personally want to change your party label, send in your card. If you want the repubs nationally to change what they call themselves, well, good luck with that.
But don’t expect the Democratic party to change their party’s brand just because the republican party continues to destroy their own.
Once again, I ask people to attempt some intellectual thought, but once again, aside from Noman (#3), that has prooved to be quite the elusive task. However, Rick, I would never expect that from you. Your thought process never seems to deviate from how anything would fatten your own wallet or indulgances.
Play politics with adults, expect nothing more than that of children (or even less).
Addendum: A1, that doesn’t totally apply to you, except in the cases of your one-size-fits-all solutions. BTW: doesn’t mean that progressive Democrats are ashamed of their party…I never said Progressive Dems were ashamed of the Dem Party. I did point out, however, and correctly, that some, such as the mass of DL, have put out (not verbatim) “Any Dem first, then good Dem second.” A “GOOD” Dem is in fact a Progressive Dem. That means if not Progressive, then no thanks. That’s a future solution of Progressive-only, Blue Dogs need not apply. My basic point, and most basic at that, is that Progressive v Conservative ideologies have far more in common within themselves than do Democratic v Republican. Drop the latter and go with the former, and you would see an ideological realignment that makes far more sense than the current one. Think about it, John Atkins and Thurman Adams partying it up with the likes of Rick (#6) at a party convention. They can think about paddle-punishment for students to their hearts’ content. Do you see my point here?
Dave A: I shouldn’t have swooped you up in that comment in #8, either. It was a short answer, but one that shouldn’t have caught my ire.
RSmitty,
I think that I see your point, but what I was trying to say is that progressive Democrats really don’t have a reason to join a “progressive” party when we are having a reasonable amount of success in influencing the Democratic Party. I don’t think that the analogous situation is true for moderate republicans.
There will always Blue Dog Dems, but so what? At least they give us a majority and all we have to do is throw them a few bones every now and then (much like your republican party treated its moderates).
The Democratic Party has a pretty big tent, and the blue dogs are welcome to apply and run in primaries. Far-left liberals such as myself want to see them defeated in primaries, of course, but that’s the way it is. I think that one of the purposes of primaries is to run liberal candidates that will help move the party in a favorable ideological direction, even if they have don’t a chance to win. I think that blue dogs feel the same way, but more on the conservative side.
In the long run, I honestly hope that the republican party splinters into several smaller parties, and that several progressive political parties on the left also become viable. In a contest between four parties, where a plurality could win it, a progressive party might have a chance (and so might a conservative party). I think that the country would be better served by having a variety of smaller parties, rather than the two major ones that we’ve known for all of our lives.
My nightmare scenario is that legions of disenfranchised conservative republicans decide to join the Democratic Party and pull it to the right.
What is a ‘moderate’ Republican? We have Mike Castle who is an avowed enemy of the traditional concept of the Second Amendment but a lap-dog for the shylocks at the big banks. Does this imply a balance?
What does it take for a nominal Republican to be deemed ‘Liberal’?
“However, Rick, I would never expect that from you. Your thought process never seems to deviate from how anything would fatten your own wallet or indulgances”….Dimbulb
Wow, Dimbulb can read minds, too.
If “brevity is the soul of wit,” where does that put you, Dimbulb?
Smitty, I’ve been really, really, really thinking on this myself. And part of what anonone says is true, they do have a niche for promoting a progressive candidate, BUT they will also vote blindly Democrat just to hold the ground. And that frosts me.
Following along anonone thoughts, I do want to know how hard is it it to start a party? And I’m not looking for “some great music, nachos and beer” answer either.
At this juncture in life I would call myself a “pragmatic progressive”, but I sure would like a stronger foothold of support from a party than the gorilla that’s out there, and the park ape running around town. I’ll leave you and the reader to decide who’s who.
Anyone out there have any answers they can give me–or point to some good resource? And Ralph Nader has been no help for a least a decade!!! Thanks.
Art,
A “moderate republican” is an oxymoron.
A “liberal republican” is just a moron.
where does that put you, Dimbulb
In your world, probably nowhere near you, but in a world of morality, in a place that you can’t possibly ever acheive.
Following along anonone thoughts, I do want to know how hard is it it to start a party? And I’m not looking for “some great music, nachos and beer” answer either.
True. For you, we will make it great music, nachos and TAB!
Joanne, I’ve been chomping at the bit to get something rolling, even if it’s simply a committee (or a club, for lack of a better word). I’m not necessarily saying it has to be a party, but enough of a movement that we matter…much to Rick’s disdain, which would be confirmation of success!
I think that the only way to start a credible new party is for a strong leader with a significant following in one of the major parties to start it or be persuaded to join and lead it initially. Otherwise, it won’t be viewed as credible or viable, two essential ingredients for attracting a critical mass of organizers and voters.
Yes TAB–you got the answer right!! A progressive party w/ a retro drink! Now there’s a start.
Smitty, we could, and I’m not afraid but I’m also not too proud to ask some of the phenomenal progressive Dems of their struggles, potholes, memos to self etc.. Because my bottom line is better government, for those who really depend on, and need it, to protect and advocate for them. Not a slush agenda to look out for Number One, then let’s get to some of these other issues government is supposed to oversee. Understand? It’s priortization to me….survival and rights first. So I look to protect probably many non-voters—and that is political suicide in this state!!! Then the other side of me is more big picture and visioning, which again can be political suicide for those who “want their’s NOW”. Aye, yay, yay…..So where are we Smitty? Does this need to move off-line for further discussion? Or do we allow this “labor and delivery” to be a witnessed event in the making?
Sorry anonone, I wasn’t overlooking you–I was writing when your post went through. Thank you for your input.
Joanne, honestly, I couldn’t care less if it were public or behind-the-scenes. I’ve pretty much proven that my heart is on my sleeve, anyway. Giving it thought, though, some of it, of course, would have to be behind-the-scenes, sure, but not for any secret-club stuff. Sometimes, it’s just better to think critically away from possible distractions.
No, I totally agree, for the mere fact I don’t have my own blog, and don’t want to be accused of “hijacking this thread”, or whatever it is you “real bloggers” say. Just the real face meeting of the issues to be defined by any and all who have an interest and want a say it what this “splinter group” represents. Then we get a blog huh?
But maybe DP and DL will let us use their place until we get our feet on the ground–tee hee.
JC and RS,
You could start a Google group or Yahoo group to get started.
JC – try clearing your Browser’s cache if you’re still having trouble getting onto DL
Oh no, is A1 posturing to be our advisor? We’re DOOMED!!!
Thanks anonone–I’ll put a “work order in”, with the kids!
Well Smitty, the US does run the “College of Generals”. or whatever it’s called down South!
RSmitty,
Listen, the news about Specter today was bad enough. Didn’t I just write that “My nightmare scenario is that legions of disenfranchised conservative republicans decide to join the Democratic Party and pull it to the right.”?
Don’t you be going all crazy on us, now. Become an “I” or a “D” or whatever, but I ain’t becoming an “advisor” to the Smitty party. Sorry!
The Smitty Party. Hmmm….
C’mon we just threw in Spector as leverage. You want to keep us home anone? Help us prune our own trees, or you will be getting the yard waste thrown over the fence, by those just committed to win on whatever party, and not principled to your party.
Is this a dream? Am I really writing this in a comment or only dreaming that I am writing in a comment? Did Specter become a Democrat? Can I please wake up now?
Did Mike Protack just buzz New York City with Airforce One?
Gotta wake up.
hey anonone–can you book us a firehall somewhere?
Stock it with
beer, Tab, too.